How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

THE_CLAMP_DOWN · May 23, 2009, 3:03am

[quote]pushharder wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
pushharder wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
pushharder wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:

Can it now? Hmmmmm…you have the floor.

already been over this, but since you insist.
Right now, present moment, w/o any further substantial conditioning acted upon you
-Believe 2+2=5
-Desire to have sex with a whale. (unless you already do)
-Do something you TRULY dont want to do.

did you try? Why didnt you comment back about this?

Our 100% Selfish nature will ensure we choose the choice that grants us the most happiness – ie the decision our unconscious self feels is best. How do we judge what is best? -From what we know. How do we know what we know? - Programming (conditioning + genetics)

this is duh proof

This is “proof” of the non-existence of a soul? You are floppin’ all over the deck of the boat like a fish without a gaff. You have done a fair amount of conjecturing and no proving.

How do you prove the non existence of a soul? It lies outside reasoning. There is no way to know. I threw it out because its a “faith” thing and there is no way to prove it.

The only way to prove no soul is to prove the bible to be total hogwash.

And yet the idea that biochemistry does it all is unprovable as well. To cling the idea that it does is Faith. You can’t quite grasp that, can you?

[/quote]

I cant grasp the idea of Faith? To believe the tv will turn on because I clicked the correct button on the remote–thats rational faith…for it is based off reason. ie the tv has turned on before.

To believe that the earth is still flat, to believe that aliens control our rectums, to believe that there is a man up in the sky who will send people to be born in the middle east and than condemn them to hell for taking part in their culture. …thats irrational faith.

and I agree, its not yet 100% provable that biochemistry does it all either. and it may never be.

Jeffe · May 23, 2009, 3:04am

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ok el jeffe: This gets harsh towards the end - but I felt it was time for some tough love . . .

Knowledge of our choice does not negate the need for our choice
Knowledge of our choice does not negate the need for our choice + bad analogy (he’d still have to wait till start of business because you might have been over at your girlfriend’s house or in the hospital - just saying its a bad analogy for your point)
Moral authority to make decisions for your life is not the same as omnipotence and creating a universe and setting its laws.
God does not punish us in this life for our sins in this life (there are natural consequences - but that is not the punishment that awaits sinners) - that why it says he is storing up wrath for the day of wrath.
4.a God did set the law - do right or suffer the consequences. But you freely chose to do wrong. And even before you chose to do wrong, he made a way for you to make it right. No, you do not get to define right or wrong - you get to choose which you will do. Your reasoning would make every legislator have to go to jail with every criminal that chooses to break a law the legislator wrote - patently absurd.
God created man to love him and to have man freely love him in turn - that is the reason for the “process”.
See above
I know you didn’t - I did, and the Bible did.
God is not responsible for what you freely choose to do.

All men are born clean.
All men choose for themselves whether they will be evil or not
All men who choose to be evil must bear the consequences of that choice
All men who have chosen to be evil can accept God’s method payment for their evil (confess and repent) and avoid the consequences of their evil - if they choose to
All men who choose to be evil and choose to not accept God’s offer of grace for their sins will have to suffer the consequences of those choices.

yes God made you - but he made you able to not sin or to sin - whichever you choose - that does not make him responsible for your choice - it makes you responsible for your choice NO ONE HAS TO SIN . . .

Also understand that every second you live is another opportunity to accept his Love - that is 1.5778463x10 to the 9th power number of chances in 50 years) - then he is done with you at the judgment and you get what you freely chose.

OK - gets rough from here out . . . I’m being very blunt and honest

Like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not - that is the Christian teaching. Call it unfair, rail against the heavens - do whatever you want. If it is true - you cannot escape it. If it is false, it doesn’t matter.

I will tell you the same thing I told O and FL - it is the extent of the punishment, not the process that you really have a problem with. if the punishment for sin was an eternity of living in New Mexico - none of you would be the slightest bit concerned about any of these issues. People want their sinful pleasures and no consequences . . . that’s all it amounts to . . .

But the mere possibility that Christianity might be true and sinners might have to spend an eternity in torment (again - i believe it is torment of the soul at having seen that it made the wrong choices + specific punishments for the evil deeds you chose to do) has everyone scrambling to find some way of proving its not true, proving that its not their fault, proving that its not fair, proving that God made them be evil all to assuage that little quiet voice of conscience that keeps whispering in the quiet times.

But why worry? - if you have chosen to not believe in the Christian God, you’ve made your choice and the beliefs of Christianity should be of no concern to you. Unless it is true . . .
[/quote]

God, according to the Bible, is timeless and falls outside of the continuum of our universe, meaning that God can not see all things as being past, present, or future. They simply are. Therefore, God knows all choices before they are made, yet to him, the choice would already have been made. This assumes God is truly omniscient and timeless. Maybe he isn’t?
The analogy may not be perfect, but it still illustrates my point.
Is it really moral authority then? Where does free will come into play here? If I can’t do whatever I want without suffering more than the natural consequences, and I can’t decide for myself what is and is not a sin, then I’m not so free, am I?
Let’s assume that’s true. If we can agree that eternity lasts for a long, long, long time, and you’ll be punished for eternity for living a mortal life of sin, isn’t that a little bit…overkill? Of course the extent of the punishment is something I have a problem with. I have a problem with the proposition that a heartbeat of time, when compared to eternity, can damn you forever. That does not appear to be consistent with the idea of a benevolent and infinitely just God. Why aren’t the natural consequences of our actions punishment enough? Why punish beyond the scope of the crime? One of the most basic tenants of morality we hold is that the punishments must be relative to the crime. And we’ve established that we hold the same moral compass as God, so is it at all possible that God is not so just, or is our own idea of justice far too soft? Should we be caning speeders and executing shoplifters? After all, it’s not a big leap in the light of how he dishes out justice to say God might.
But is the process necessary for that to remain true? Even if we allow that God would be so lonely that he would create a universe for the express purpose of loving him, what role does a mortal life have in that love? Are dead people incapable of loving God, and by extension, incapable of emotion entirely? If that’s the case then the notion of a soul as our source of emotion and understanding and all of that (it is the soul that contains our very essence and is an absolute requirement for human existence, is it not?) can not be true. If this is the case then we must say that the concept of an soul, mortal or immortal must be flawed. And if we insist at this point that a soul does exist but may be incapable of emotions beyond the mortal life, what kind of reward or punishment could there possibly be in the afterlife? It is a pretty serious waste of time to try and punish something that feels no shame, no fear, no anger, no hate, none of it. And it certainly seems a huge waste of time to prime and prepare a soul for an eternity of mutual love if it is incapable of the emotion.
I don’t believe your above answer has any relevance to my proposal.
But if all men, all men, are evil, what’s the deal with Jesus? He lived a mortal life, died a mortal death at the hands of mortal men. By all accounts, he lived a mortal life no differently than you or I do. So now we run into an interesting dilemma. It is accepted that during his time on this Earth, Jesus was a mortal man. Therefore, if Jesus was a mortal man, and all men are evil, then Jesus was evil. To say that Jesus was not a man, but something more, or even different, is to destroy any relevance he may have on our human condition and time on Earth. How could he truly know the mortal condition if he was not 100% mortal man during his life? So we must say that Jesus, like any other man, was evil. And yet, the Bible, and you, say that Jesus led a life without sin. So which is it? Is the Bible wrong and Jesus lived a sinful life like any other, but got some preferential treatment from up top because he had some friends in high places, or is to sin not actually evil and therefore not worthy of punishment?
If God is omniscient and omnipotent then not only did he create and set in motion the circumstances, but also the vehicle by which the choices are made (the soul of the chooser). In addition, God created the cause for the choice. Causality is and always will be the way our universe works. Even the idea of creation, God needed love so he made you and I, is cause and effect. You sin, so you go to hell. Cause and effect. So we have a God that has created the scene, the setting and the plot. He has designed the characters right down to the tiniest personality traits and quirks. He has worked out every tiny influential factor, and now he creates the need for a choice. The specifics don’t matter, the formula is always the same. Of course there are influences over our choices, but as has been stated, those influences are consistent with causality.
You are hungry and have no money, so you steal food to eat.
You are insane, so you shaved your head and scream at people from rooftops.
The formula is always the same.
So if we can agree that cause and effect is the way the world works, and it is, and to argue against it is impossible, as the very argument is an example of cause and effect, then God has to share some of the burden of the choices as it is his creation, and he has created every factor in the choice, on both sides, the environmental and the internal. To say that has no part in making that choice is to say that God has no effect on your life.

Now for your bullet points, worded according to your own arguments (and the Bibles)

~All men are born evil
~All men are born evil (a repeat, I know, but so was yours)
~All men who live in their true, God given evil nature, will be punished by that same creator
~All men who live in their true, God given evil nature, must apologize (and say it like they mean it) for living their life as their nature has dictated
~All men who choose to live as God created them but do not apologize for it are punished, because He said so.

And just to touch on your last paragraph, you said yourself all men are evil, and born that way, so why would anyone need to scramble to try and prove it?

Jeffe · May 23, 2009, 3:06am

I’d like to see more than just Irish’s opinions here as well, whether in agreement or against.

Mad_Duck · May 23, 2009, 3:39am

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya see, Mak, the only way you can really know that it’s all about the chemicals is to have some…faith.[/quote]

…or try more chemicals!
;'D

IrishSteel · May 23, 2009, 3:46am

[quote]Jeffe wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ok el jeffe: This gets harsh towards the end - but I felt it was time for some tough love . . .

Knowledge of our choice does not negate the need for our choice
Knowledge of our choice does not negate the need for our choice + bad analogy (he’d still have to wait till start of business because you might have been over at your girlfriend’s house or in the hospital - just saying its a bad analogy for your point)
Moral authority to make decisions for your life is not the same as omnipotence and creating a universe and setting its laws.
God does not punish us in this life for our sins in this life (there are natural consequences - but that is not the punishment that awaits sinners) - that why it says he is storing up wrath for the day of wrath.
4.a God did set the law - do right or suffer the consequences. But you freely chose to do wrong. And even before you chose to do wrong, he made a way for you to make it right. No, you do not get to define right or wrong - you get to choose which you will do. Your reasoning would make every legislator have to go to jail with every criminal that chooses to break a law the legislator wrote - patently absurd.
God created man to love him and to have man freely love him in turn - that is the reason for the “process”.
See above
I know you didn’t - I did, and the Bible did.
God is not responsible for what you freely choose to do.

All men are born clean.
All men choose for themselves whether they will be evil or not
All men who choose to be evil must bear the consequences of that choice
All men who have chosen to be evil can accept God’s method payment for their evil (confess and repent) and avoid the consequences of their evil - if they choose to
All men who choose to be evil and choose to not accept God’s offer of grace for their sins will have to suffer the consequences of those choices.

yes God made you - but he made you able to not sin or to sin - whichever you choose - that does not make him responsible for your choice - it makes you responsible for your choice NO ONE HAS TO SIN . . .

Also understand that every second you live is another opportunity to accept his Love - that is 1.5778463x10 to the 9th power number of chances in 50 years) - then he is done with you at the judgment and you get what you freely chose.

OK - gets rough from here out . . . I’m being very blunt and honest

Like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not - that is the Christian teaching. Call it unfair, rail against the heavens - do whatever you want. If it is true - you cannot escape it. If it is false, it doesn’t matter.

I will tell you the same thing I told O and FL - it is the extent of the punishment, not the process that you really have a problem with. if the punishment for sin was an eternity of living in New Mexico - none of you would be the slightest bit concerned about any of these issues. People want their sinful pleasures and no consequences . . . that’s all it amounts to . . .

But the mere possibility that Christianity might be true and sinners might have to spend an eternity in torment (again - i believe it is torment of the soul at having seen that it made the wrong choices + specific punishments for the evil deeds you chose to do) has everyone scrambling to find some way of proving its not true, proving that its not their fault, proving that its not fair, proving that God made them be evil all to assuage that little quiet voice of conscience that keeps whispering in the quiet times.

But why worry? - if you have chosen to not believe in the Christian God, you’ve made your choice and the beliefs of Christianity should be of no concern to you. Unless it is true . . .

God, according to the Bible, is timeless and falls outside of the continuum of our universe, meaning that God can not see all things as being past, present, or future. They simply are. Therefore, God knows all choices before they are made, yet to him, the choice would already have been made. This assumes God is truly omniscient and timeless. Maybe he isn’t?
The analogy may not be perfect, but it still illustrates my point.
Is it really moral authority then? Where does free will come into play here? If I can’t do whatever I want without suffering more than the natural consequences, and I can’t decide for myself what is and is not a sin, then I’m not so free, am I?
Let’s assume that’s true. If we can agree that eternity lasts for a long, long, long time, and you’ll be punished for eternity for living a mortal life of sin, isn’t that a little bit…overkill? Of course the extent of the punishment is something I have a problem with. I have a problem with the proposition that a heartbeat of time, when compared to eternity, can damn you forever. That does not appear to be consistent with the idea of a benevolent and infinitely just God. Why aren’t the natural consequences of our actions punishment enough? Why punish beyond the scope of the crime? One of the most basic tenants of morality we hold is that the punishments must be relative to the crime. And we’ve established that we hold the same moral compass as God, so is it at all possible that God is not so just, or is our own idea of justice far too soft? Should we be caning speeders and executing shoplifters? After all, it’s not a big leap in the light of how he dishes out justice to say God might.
But is the process necessary for that to remain true? Even if we allow that God would be so lonely that he would create a universe for the express purpose of loving him, what role does a mortal life have in that love? Are dead people incapable of loving God, and by extension, incapable of emotion entirely? If that’s the case then the notion of a soul as our source of emotion and understanding and all of that (it is the soul that contains our very essence and is an absolute requirement for human existence, is it not?) can not be true. If this is the case then we must say that the concept of an soul, mortal or immortal must be flawed. And if we insist at this point that a soul does exist but may be incapable of emotions beyond the mortal life, what kind of reward or punishment could there possibly be in the afterlife? It is a pretty serious waste of time to try and punish something that feels no shame, no fear, no anger, no hate, none of it. And it certainly seems a huge waste of time to prime and prepare a soul for an eternity of mutual love if it is incapable of the emotion.
I don’t believe your above answer has any relevance to my proposal.
But if all men, all men, are evil, what’s the deal with Jesus? He lived a mortal life, died a mortal death at the hands of mortal men. By all accounts, he lived a mortal life no differently than you or I do. So now we run into an interesting dilemma. It is accepted that during his time on this Earth, Jesus was a mortal man. Therefore, if Jesus was a mortal man, and all men are evil, then Jesus was evil. To say that Jesus was not a man, but something more, or even different, is to destroy any relevance he may have on our human condition and time on Earth. How could he truly know the mortal condition if he was not 100% mortal man during his life? So we must say that Jesus, like any other man, was evil. And yet, the Bible, and you, say that Jesus led a life without sin. So which is it? Is the Bible wrong and Jesus lived a sinful life like any other, but got some preferential treatment from up top because he had some friends in high places, or is to sin not actually evil and therefore not worthy of punishment?
If God is omniscient and omnipotent then not only did he create and set in motion the circumstances, but also the vehicle by which the choices are made (the soul of the chooser). In addition, God created the cause for the choice. Causality is and always will be the way our universe works. Even the idea of creation, God needed love so he made you and I, is cause and effect. You sin, so you go to hell. Cause and effect. So we have a God that has created the scene, the setting and the plot. He has designed the characters right down to the tiniest personality traits and quirks. He has worked out every tiny influential factor, and now he creates the need for a choice. The specifics don’t matter, the formula is always the same. Of course there are influences over our choices, but as has been stated, those influences are consistent with causality.
You are hungry and have no money, so you steal food to eat.
You are insane, so you shaved your head and scream at people from rooftops.
The formula is always the same.
So if we can agree that cause and effect is the way the world works, and it is, and to argue against it is impossible, as the very argument is an example of cause and effect, then God has to share some of the burden of the choices as it is his creation, and he has created every factor in the choice, on both sides, the environmental and the internal. To say that has no part in making that choice is to say that God has no effect on your life.

Now for your bullet points, worded according to your own arguments (and the Bibles)

~All men are born evil
~All men are born evil (a repeat, I know, but so was yours)
~All men who live in their true, God given evil nature, will be punished by that same creator
~All men who live in their true, God given evil nature, must apologize (and say it like they mean it) for living their life as their nature has dictated
~All men who choose to live as God created them but do not apologize for it are punished, because He said so.

And just to touch on your last paragraph, you said yourself all men are evil, and born that way, so why would anyone need to scramble to try and prove it?[/quote]

Yes, God is omnipresent, existing outside of the time continuum that he created. It is most accurate to say that God is knowing all decisions (there is no past, present or future from his perspective). This also means that there is no before or after God’s creating - there is just creating.
Poorly - well actually not at all- what was your point? Oh yeah, that God’s knowing what our decision will be somehow negate the need for the choice to be met - again-that’s your opinion, but knowledge does not negate the need for a choice to be made. (see my response to FL)
You are again confusing several things - ability to choice is not the power to create, nor is it the power to avoid the natural consequences of our choices - which is what one will get for not confessing and repenting - the natural consequence of not confessing and repenting is eternal punishment. You either get to be punished or not punished if you have chosen to sin.
Stop right there - we can not agree that eternity is a really long long long long time - there is not time-there is no consciousness that any time has passed at all- because it hasn’t. There is no awareness of how long you have been punished - so there rest of your comments really don’t have a leg to stand on - because you misunderstand the concept of eternity without time.
Yes the process is necessary - because without the choice there is no choice. You are still missing the concept of timelessness. As I said earlier - there is no before creation or after creation, there is no before judgment or after judgment -there is just the continual state of being for God - there is no passage of time for him. He is at creation while he is as your birth while he is at your death while he is at your judgment.
I do . . .
No - all men who can chose to do evil at some point in their lives choose to do evil, maybe every time, maybe only some of the time, maybe only once - but God from his timeless perspective sees that all men are choosing to sin at some point- except for Christ- who has the exact same free will, faced exactly the same temptations, had exactly the same capacities and abilities that we do - but he never chose to sin - never chose to become evil - he showed us what we were supposed to have done and should us that it could have been done if we had simply chosen to do so.
God is omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent - he created the universe and mankind to honor himself - he chose to create man in his image (with attributes that reflected his own) and gave man the ability to love, to choose, to create, to destroy and even to create life (through procreation) - and free moral autonomy - so that man could chose his own fate, just as God can choose his own fate. However, He is the creator and we are the creation - we are not on equal footing with him. Just as we must obey the laws of nature in this physical universe, so too must we obey the laws of nature in the spiritual universe. There are consequences for ignoring or breaking the laws of the physical and spiritual universes. God did not create the cause for the choice - he created a person who could freely make any choice it wanted - but with the knowledge that violating the laws wold have consequences. When the person reaches their age of accountability - then the choices they make become morally culpable choices. You are still trying to force pre-determinism into free will - it cannot be done. Influence is not cause - choice is cause.

You are hungry and have no money - you either choose to steal or you choose to find an honest way of obtaining food.

You portrayed an oversimplified process - - There is a set of circumstances and you in those circumstances led there by previous choices that have been made (all influences) that creates the potential for multiple choices of action - you get to choose which action will be done next and which ones will not be done next - this CHOICE causes the action to take place and the effects move out setting up new circumstances and new choices - the choice is stills your and you are never forced to make any particular choice - you are always free to choose any action or non-action you choose. I have never said that there were not influences - I have repeatedly said that choice always remains.

No - all men are not born evil - I never said this and neither did the Bible. That makes everything else in your construct equally false.

Never said man was born evil - I said men choose to become evil.

Mad_Duck · May 23, 2009, 3:47am

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya see, Mak, the only way you can really know that it’s all about the chemicals is to have some…faith.[/quote]

…or try more chemicals!
;'D

IrishSteel · May 23, 2009, 3:56am

[quote]Hodgie wrote:

There are problems with relying on one verse to define doctrine. You see 2 Corininthians 5:8 as evidence for the separation of body and soul. However, one could easily interpret that verse to mean turning away from desires of the flesh, and having the Lord govern our thoughts and actions.

As for spirtual death, thats seems to contradict the eternal life in flames doctrine so prevailent today. Scripture is pretty clear that souls will be DESTROYED on judgment day, not granted everlasting life in flames, Hell, separated from God etc.

This wasn’t an attack, there’s no need for flak jackets. [/quote]

seriously? that was your response - a weak interpretation at best . . .

So- what is the question? Do you want me to refute him point by tedious point?

Makavali · May 23, 2009, 12:18pm

You’ve already made your choice. Now you have to understand why you made it.

pookie · May 23, 2009, 2:00pm

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
I cant grasp the idea of Faith? To believe the tv will turn on because I clicked the correct button on the remote–thats rational faith…for it is based off reason. ie the tv has turned on before.[/quote]

Yeah, credophiles are apparently unaware that the word “faith” has multiple meanings, one of them being “faith” in the same sense as “trust”. You have “faith” that the TV will turn on when you click the remote, because past experiences have taught you that that’s the expected outcome from that action. It is not an irrational faith in something supernatural you’ve been told to believe by someone who was told to believe by yet someone else and so on; and for which there is zero evidence.

Ah well, just one more little game credophiles need to play to divert the discussions off their funny beliefs. They learn that useful skill at the Humpty Dumpty Debate Seminar: words mean just what they want them to mean; and only for whatever time it is convenient for them to mean what they meant them to mean.

Although it is amusing to see them go “…and for X you need… FAITH!!! A-HA! Game, set and match!!!” as if lack of vocabulary skills made up for lack of evidence. Yes, having faith that your kid will succeed at something - because he worked hard and is well prepared - is EXACTLY the same faith that has you believing in an invisible Sky Fairy who’s so subtle and undetectable that it’s like He’s not even there. And since the same word describes two completely different feelings, the Sky Fairy definitely exists. Like, totally.

Other useful tools of the credophiles: Circular logic, straw men, requiring opponents to prove negatives, absence of evidence as evidence of existence, smart = evil, old dead guys were smarter (but not evil in their case) than anyone alive today, requiring burdens of evidence from opponents that they can’t meet themselves, declaring impossibilities as axiomatic, lack of scientific explanation automatically meaning their fantasy made-up explanation is correct, etc. But I digress.

What we really need is a new word for the kind of “faith” the credophiles cling to so hard. I propose “failth”. It combines the words “faith”, “fail” and “filth” and, I think, properly establishes the correct meaning of what they’re so unsuccessfully trying to both convey and desperately find in others. That way, we can say “I have faith that my kid will use his reason instead of joining the ranks of the failthful” and avoid any further etymological confusion.

So come, all ye failthful, let us return to our now clearer discussions.

Makavali · May 23, 2009, 10:53am

I love you pookie.

No homo.

IrishSteel · May 23, 2009, 4:46pm

[quote]pookie wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
I cant grasp the idea of Faith? To believe the tv will turn on because I clicked the correct button on the remote–thats rational faith…for it is based off reason. ie the tv has turned on before.

Yeah, credophiles are apparently unaware that the word “faith” has multiple meanings, one of them being “faith” in the same sense as “trust”. You have “faith” that the TV will turn on when you click the remote, because past experiences have taught you that that’s the expected outcome from that action. It is not an irrational faith in something supernatural you’ve been told to believe by someone who was told to believe by yet someone else and so on; and for which there is zero evidence.

Ah well, just one more little game credophiles need to play to divert the discussions off their funny beliefs. They learn that useful skill at the Humpty Dumpty Debate Seminar: words mean just what they want them to mean; and only for whatever time it is convenient for them to mean what they meant them to mean.

Although it is amusing to see them go “…and for X you need… FAITH!!! A-HA! Game, set and match!!!” as if lack of vocabulary skills made up for lack of evidence. Yes, having faith that your kid will succeed at something - because he worked hard and is well prepared - is EXACTLY the same faith that has you believing in an invisible Sky Fairy who’s so subtle and undetectable that it’s like He’s not even there. And since the same word describes two completely different feelings, the Sky Fairy definitely exists. Like, totally.

Other useful tools of the credophiles: Circular logic, straw men, requiring opponents to prove negatives, absence of evidence as evidence of existence, smart = evil, old dead guys were smarter (but not evil in their case) than anyone alive today, requiring burdens of evidence from opponents that they can’t meet themselves, declaring impossibilities as axiomatic, lack of scientific explanation automatically meaning their fantasy made-up explanation is correct, etc. But I digress.

What we really need is a new word for the kind of “faith” the credophiles cling to so hard. I propose “failth”. It combines the words “faith”, “fail” and “filth” and, I think, properly establishes the correct meaning of what they’re so unsuccessfully trying to both convey and desperately find in others. That way, we can say “I have faith that my kid will use his reason instead of joining the ranks of the failthful” and avoid any further etymological confusion.

So come, all ye failthful, let us return to our now clearer discussions.
[/quote]

Thanks for that - but all of the socialists and liberals are in other threads . . . .

IrishSteel · May 23, 2009, 5:21pm

[quote]pookie wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
I cant grasp the idea of Faith? To believe the tv will turn on because I clicked the correct button on the remote–thats rational faith…for it is based off reason. ie the tv has turned on before.

Yeah, credophiles are apparently unaware that the word “faith” has multiple meanings, one of them being “faith” in the same sense as “trust”. You have “faith” that the TV will turn on when you click the remote, because past experiences have taught you that that’s the expected outcome from that action. It is not an irrational faith in something supernatural you’ve been told to believe by someone who was told to believe by yet someone else and so on; and for which there is zero evidence.

Ah well, just one more little game credophiles need to play to divert the discussions off their funny beliefs. They learn that useful skill at the Humpty Dumpty Debate Seminar: words mean just what they want them to mean; and only for whatever time it is convenient for them to mean what they meant them to mean.

Although it is amusing to see them go “…and for X you need… FAITH!!! A-HA! Game, set and match!!!” as if lack of vocabulary skills made up for lack of evidence. Yes, having faith that your kid will succeed at something - because he worked hard and is well prepared - is EXACTLY the same faith that has you believing in an invisible Sky Fairy who’s so subtle and undetectable that it’s like He’s not even there. And since the same word describes two completely different feelings, the Sky Fairy definitely exists. Like, totally.

Other useful tools of the credophiles: Circular logic, straw men, requiring opponents to prove negatives, absence of evidence as evidence of existence, smart = evil, old dead guys were smarter (but not evil in their case) than anyone alive today, requiring burdens of evidence from opponents that they can’t meet themselves, declaring impossibilities as axiomatic, lack of scientific explanation automatically meaning their fantasy made-up explanation is correct, etc. But I digress.

What we really need is a new word for the kind of “faith” the credophiles cling to so hard. I propose “failth”. It combines the words “faith”, “fail” and “filth” and, I think, properly establishes the correct meaning of what they’re so unsuccessfully trying to both convey and desperately find in others. That way, we can say “I have faith that my kid will use his reason instead of joining the ranks of the failthful” and avoid any further etymological confusion.

So come, all ye failthful, let us return to our now clearer discussions.
[/quote]

Funny how those who supposedly value rational debate and intellectual honesty and tolerance for different groups always fall back to mockery of Christian faith in the end - but they CHOSE to do so because they have FAITH that it somehow makes them appear more intellectual - little realizing that all they manage to do is paint themselves with bigotry and hatred for people who hold different beliefs than they do.

The strange part is that no one is forcing or demanding that they accept the views of those who belief in Christianity - in fact, we are more honest and accepting and tolerant than they ever could be - we understand that people choose to believe different things - that they account credibility to different sources and weight things proportional to their chosen beliefs - and we are ok with that. We do not like it when people who don’t practice/believe our faith go around misrepresenting it or changing doctrines to suit their hatred of our faith - so we defend it- but we never ask anyone to accept it - we only present it - ask for fair understanding and leave it entirely up to you to either accept it or not - and then we are perfectly at peace with your choice because it is your choice. We might make fun of some stupid mis-characterization or poor logic you throw at us - but we never attack your beliefs about your world view.

How many times have I expressed my happiness with people who express a different set of beliefs than mine? I’m glad your are choosing what you will believe - at least it shows that you have some rudimentary understanding of the issues and are concerned enough about them to form an opinion of your own.

But the mocking derision is completely out of line in any honest discussion.

So the fact that faith has multiple meanings justifies your discounting of religious faith? You are able to know the hearts and minds of every person on the planet and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single one of them lack any proof for the existence of the Divine? You are amazing - what an intellect (derision of a ridiculous oversimplification)!

Funny how you immediately:

characterized all religious faith as being based on what someone else said (another ridiculous misrepresentation) - when I have used reason and rational thought to explain how I came to my world-view starting from science.
stated that we try to divert attention away from our “funny beliefs” - I do believe I have spent hours defending my beliefs with a very measured and rational approach and have not sidestepped a single issue - you may not agree with me - but I have not run away from the discussion or tried to divert attention away from the belief itself
stated that our beliefs have zero evidence - for which we point out the entire universe and every wonderful amazing thing in it - you have a different opinion about this which requires even greater faith than we demonstrate - a faith I applaud you for!
accuse us of every logical fallacy in the book - when I can demonstrate those very tactics throughout this discussion from your side of the discussion and challenge you to find one in mine! don’t randomly accuse- be specific!
You claim science is not on our side - and we say the same about you (see creation versus evolution thread) -and in the end you have no cause for the universe except that the Universe is Omnipotent (it has decided its own course and developed everything contained within it including the laws which govern it), Omniscient (the universe knows which species is most fit for survival and has moved towards every more complex forms of life when its own laws say everything moves towards decline, decay and devolution) and Omnipresent (the universe - energy and matter - has always been and will always be) - you assign all of the Divine attributes to the inanimate universe and cannot explain its origin - we assign all of the Divine attributes to the Designer and seek to know him better because he has revealed himself to us through his creation and through his word.

Your last paragraph is so derogatory and bigoted - well, if that is who you choose to be, good luck with that.

THE_CLAMP_DOWN · May 24, 2009, 4:12am

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
pookie wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
I cant grasp the idea of Faith? To believe the tv will turn on because I clicked the correct button on the remote–thats rational faith…for it is based off reason. ie the tv has turned on before.